See All

Preferences

My Communities

My Discussions

My Email Digests

My response can be divided into three parts, mostly addressing her argument's lack of proportionality--what's important and what's not.

Misunderstanding our book's objectives and my research findings

Excessive reliance on the use of unadjusted correlations in the China database

Failure to note the broader implications of choosing the right dietary lifestyle

Before proceeding further, however, I would like to make a general comment about my approach in responding to Denise. I believe Denise is a very intelligent person, and I can see how she might reach the conclusions she did; this is easy to do for someone without extensive scientific research experience. Having said this, there are fundamental flaws in her reasoning, and it is these flaws that I will address in this paper. Some might wonder, "Why didn't he go through her laundry list of claims and address each one in the same order?" The answer is simple: these claims are derived from the same faulty reasoning, so it is this underlying problem that I will address. I do in fact illustrate this point by addressing one of her claims regarding wheat, and the reader can assume that one could go through a similar exercise with all her claims

Excessive reliance on the use of unadjusted correlations in the China database

Failure to note the broader implications of choosing the right dietary lifestyle

Before proceeding further, however, I would like to make a general comment about my approach in responding to Denise. I believe Denise is a very intelligent person, and I can see how she might reach the conclusions she did; this is easy to do for someone without extensive scientific research experience. Having said this, there are fundamental flaws in her reasoning, and it is these flaws that I will address in this paper. Some might wonder, "Why didn't he go through her laundry list of claims and address each one in the same order?" The answer is simple: these claims are derived from the same faulty reasoning, so it is this underlying problem that I will address. I do in fact illustrate this point by addressing one of her claims regarding wheat, and the reader can assume that one could go through a similar exercise with all her claims

Are you one of the author of the China Study book or just reposting it? Personally, I would urge you to write under you own name or at least let us know. You have nothing to fear. On this forum, nobody will abuse you and if your reasons are logical and based on facts, you have also nothing too fear in terms of a loss of a professional credibility. Not by speaking the truth!

Re: * Misunderstanding our book's objectives and my research findings

Your personal goals or objectives such as your support of a particular diet are irrelevant in science, only the truth is. Your research findings from your book seem to contradict the China study raw data, see for example my review here .

Also your findings from the book also seem to contradict some of your own earlier peer reviewed publications. For example, you have shown that in your own publication with Appleton http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6131741 that casein not only IS NOT carcinogenic on its own, but in fact protects rats against dying on liver poisoning by aflatoxins, so much that instead of dying of the quickly progressing liver decay, they continue living on until they die of more slowly developing cancer (from aflatoxins - not casein!).

Another study from India seem to negate your caseine/aflatoxin findings discussed in your book, even more so: "Effect of Low Protein Diet on Low Dose Chronic Aflatoxin B1 Induced Hepatic Injury in Rhesus Monkeys"http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15569548909059756The study done on Rhesus monkeys, directly and explicitely showed that the life-prolonging effect of casein under the lower more realistic doses of cancerous poison (aflatoxin) is even more pronounced than under the high nearly lethal doses used in your research.

Are you one of the author of the China Study book or just reposting it? Personally, I would urge you to write under you own name or at least let us know. You have nothing to fear. On this forum, nobody will abuse you and if your reasons are logical and based on facts, you have also nothing too fear in terms of a loss of a professional credibility. Not by speaking the truth!

Re: * Misunderstanding our book's objectives and my research findings

Your personal goals or objectives such as your support of a particular diet are irrelevant in science, only the truth is. Your research findings from your book seem to contradict the China study raw data, see for example my review here .

Also your findings from the book also seem to contradict some of your own earlier peer reviewed publications. For example, you have shown that in your own publication with Appleton http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6131741 that casein not only IS NOT carcinogenic on its own, but in fact protects rats against dying on liver poisoning by aflatoxins, so much that instead of dying of the quickly progressing liver decay, they continue living on until they die of more slowly developing cancer (from aflatoxins - not casein!).

Another study from India seem to negate your caseine/aflatoxin findings discussed in your book, even more so: "Effect of Low Protein Diet on Low Dose Chronic Aflatoxin B1 Induced Hepatic Injury in Rhesus Monkeys"http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15569548909059756The study done on Rhesus monkeys, directly and explicitely showed that the life-prolonging effect of casein under the lower more realistic doses of cancerous poison (aflatoxin) is even more pronounced than under the high nearly lethal doses used in your research.

Re: * Excessive reliance on the use of unadjusted correlations in the China database

Denise used raw correlations and plots, I also have used the raw data and spreadsheets published on the Oxford website here put them in a spreadsheet and plotted some grpahs. Our results are mostly contradicting your conclusions from your book. See for example the raw graph of wheat consumption versus heart disease from my blog, the bottom graph here . Or have a look at the plot of cancer versus animal fat consumption, which is here . The raw correlations are quite the opposite of your findings!

Some people have used more sophisticated multivariate regression analysis. One of the most remarkable results calculated by a professional statistician Rich Kroeker, on heart disease vs diet in China study, are posted here .

You have been claiming that either the raw data stats or somebody else's are wrong but it may equally be that the raw data or Kroeker's multivariate calcs are correct and your may be wrong. In statistical modelling a lot depends upon basic assumption one makes. I have been doing statistical modelling too in plasma physics, and in my experience the more elaborate multivariate modelling one uses the more scope for errors. The type of errors I am talking about are errors of omission, for instance by combining some variables but omitting an important one. One can also obtain strong false multivariate correlations out of combining variables that are not fully independent and have an hidden common correlator factor.

Re: * Failure to note the broader implications of choosing the right dietary lifestyle

I think Denise Minger did notice the broad implications of choosing a particular (vegan) dietary lifestyle upon herself! That is precisely, I think, when her health begun deteriorating, when she started re-examining the theories and assumptions, including your book! This is perfectly rational. I did the same in 1999.

Denise used raw correlations and plots, I also have used the raw data and spreadsheets published on the Oxford website here put them in a spreadsheet and plotted some grpahs. Our results are mostly contradicting your conclusions from your book. See for example the raw graph of wheat consumption versus heart disease from my blog, the bottom graph here . Or have a look at the plot of cancer versus animal fat consumption, which is here . The raw correlations are quite the opposite of your findings!

Some people have used more sophisticated multivariate regression analysis. One of the most remarkable results calculated by a professional statistician Rich Kroeker, on heart disease vs diet in China study, are posted here .

You have been claiming that either the raw data stats or somebody else's are wrong but it may equally be that the raw data or Kroeker's multivariate calcs are correct and your may be wrong. In statistical modelling a lot depends upon basic assumption one makes. I have been doing statistical modelling too in plasma physics, and in my experience the more elaborate multivariate modelling one uses the more scope for errors. The type of errors I am talking about are errors of omission, for instance by combining some variables but omitting an important one. One can also obtain strong false multivariate correlations out of combining variables that are not fully independent and have an hidden common correlator factor.

Re: * Failure to note the broader implications of choosing the right dietary lifestyle

I think Denise Minger did notice the broad implications of choosing a particular (vegan) dietary lifestyle upon herself! That is precisely, I think, when her health begun deteriorating, when she started re-examining the theories and assumptions, including your book! This is perfectly rational. I did the same in 1999.

The China Study absolutely never said that casein is a carcinogen, in any way.

I recall when we debated years ago. You showed that total cancer deaths did not correlate with diet. I pointed out that total cancer deaths includes lung cancer, which is more than 1/3 of all deaths, in Asia, where smoking rates are much higher than here. So, total cancer would not be expected to correlate with diet, due to the noise of purposely including a large and known non-diet related cancer. But your resolve was unshaken, and you insisted that the total cancer correlation showed that the China Study was flawed.

The China Study absolutely never said that casein is a carcinogen, in any way.

I recall when we debated years ago. You showed that total cancer deaths did not correlate with diet. I pointed out that total cancer deaths includes lung cancer, which is more than 1/3 of all deaths, in Asia, where smoking rates are much higher than here. So, total cancer would not be expected to correlate with diet, due to the noise of purposely including a large and known non-diet related cancer. But your resolve was unshaken, and you insisted that the total cancer correlation showed that the China Study was flawed.

I stand by what I said. Smoking is carcinogenic but if the animal produce were as unhealthy as Campbell claimes that it would have made tobacco induced cancer stats worse. But it didn't!

China Study research done by Beijing, Oxford and (ahem) Cornell Universities is valid but Campbell's popular book of the same title is flawed.

Thanks for your Reply!

Report This| Share this:from TC CampbellI stand by what I said. Smoking is carcinogenic but if the animal produce were as unhealthy as Campbell claimes that it would have made tobacco induced cancer stats worse. But it didn't!

China Study research done by Beijing, Oxford and (ahem) Cornell Universities is valid but Campbell's popular book of the same title is flawed.

Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

You are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.

The opinions expressed in WebMD Communities are solely those of the User, who may or may not have medical or scientific training. These opinions do not represent the opinions of WebMD. Communities are not reviewed by a WebMD physician or any member of the WebMD editorial staff for accuracy, balance, objectivity, or any other reason except for compliance with our Terms and Conditions. Some of these opinions may contain information about treatments or uses of drug products that have not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. WebMD does not endorse any specific product, service or treatment.

Do not consider Communities as medical advice. Never delay or disregard seeking professional medical advice from your doctor or other qualified healthcare provider because of something you have read on WebMD. You should always speak with your doctor before you start, stop, or change any prescribed part of your care plan or treatment. WebMD understands that reading individual, real-life experiences can be a helpful resource, but it is never a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment from a qualified health care provider. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your doctor or dial 911 immediately.